ORDER
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction stating that they were living in constructed houses for the last about 25 years and were having all facilities of street light, water, electricity connection, ration card, sewerage, schools etc. They were apprehending threat to their possession. A writ petition being CWP No. 9782 of 1997 (Ambika Parsad v. State of Haryana) was filed in this Court wherein it was directed that the petitioners will not be evicted except after being heard. Thereafter, COCP No. 1140 of 1998 was filed wherein the counsel for the State made a statement that the petitioners will be heard. The petitioners were heard by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad but rejected their claim. The petitioners were required to remove construction on or before 19-8-1999. It was further stated that the plaintiffs had a right to be allotted alternative sites and they had become owners by adverse possession and, therefore, they could not be dispossessed nor constructions put up by them could be removed. The plaintiffs also filed application for temporary injunction.
2. The plaintiffs are 13 in number but they claim to be representatives of persons mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the plaint. The defendants are State of Haryana. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.
3. The defendants contested the suit on the plea that the land was vested in the State Government by virtue of Award No. 8, dated 10-12-1963 whereby land was acquired by paying compensation and plaintiffs had no right in the suit property. Being trespassers, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction against true owners.
4. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case and dismissed the application for temporary injunction.
5. The Courts below have referred to orders of this Court dated 24-4-1998 in CWP No. 9782 of 1997 to the effect that the petitioners will be heard before eviction. SLP against the said order being SLP No. 12098 of 1998 is said to have been dismissed as withdrawn. Another writ petition being CWP No. 9639 of 1999 (Prabhu Nath v. State) was filed which was dismissed on 20-7-1999. It was held that the petitioners were not entitled to allotment of alternative sites. While dismissing the writ petition on 20-7-1999, this Court granted liberty to file suit. The Courts below held that claim for adverse possession was not made out as time under Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act for the State Government was 30 years from the date of commencement of adverse possession which was not prima facie made out. It was held that mere unauthorised possession of the petitioners could not be equated to adverse possession. Reference is made to judgments of the Apex Court in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India, 1994 (5) SCC 547 : (1995 AIR SCW 2425); Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. The Puna Municipal Corporation 1995 (2) JT (SC) 504 : (1995 AIR SCW 1439). Reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Lal v. Mohan Singh, 1995 PLJ 48, wherein it was held that possession of public property by individuals or group of individuals will not create any right and Court has to act as guardian of public property and should not pass order of injunction In favour of unauthorised encroacher.
6. The lower appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the trial Court. Hence this petition.
7. Along with the revision petition, the petitioners have filed a list of 2016 persons claiming that they represent the said persons.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Government had provided all modern facilities to the petitioners including voters' identity cards, ration cards, schools, electricity etc. and after doing that, the authorities could not be allowed to demolish the houses of the petitioners. Order for removal of encroachments passed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in para 9 of the revision petition is as under:--
'I hereby further order today i.e. 29-6-1999 that all the illegal encroachers/persons who have unauthorisedly occupied to vacate the park/green belt etc. land in Sector 4R, HUDA, Faridabad on or before 19-7-1999 failing which the HUDA shall remove the illegal encroachment and demolish all illegal structures in the said land by using such force as may be necessary to implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court.'
9. Case of the petitioners is that hearing by respondent No. 3 pursuant to orders of this Court was a formality and no reason is given for rejecting contention of the petitioners that since they had ration cards, voters' list, electricity bills etc. showing their possession, how they could be dispossessed. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court dated 26-4-1999 in Azad Bharat Colony v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 11637 of 1996 wherein the respondents were directed to constitute a Committee to provide alternative sites to those living in Jhuggi/ Jhonpari colonies for the last five years or more. It was also directed that seniority list be prepared on the basis of date of occupation and policy be framed for allotment of EWS houses failing which alternative sites at a maximum distance of 7 to 10 kms. be provided. (As observed in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. the plots offered should not be more than 2 marlas and those who accept the allotment should vacate within two months. A direction was also issued that in future, the State Government and HUDA should take measures to prevent encroachment on public land and fix responsibility of the officers guilty of negligence resulting in encroachment. It is also stated that the matter was pending in the Supreme Court.
10. On behalf of the State of Haryana, two affidavits have been filed -- one by Shri Bhaskar Chatterjee, Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning to the effect that the Government of Haryana has not formulated any policy regarding removal of encroachers from the illegal possession of the Government land as action for removing of encroachment is initiated by respective departments according to law. It is further stated that the Government has not formulated any policy for re-settlement as it is impossible for the Government to resettle or rehabilitate a large number of encroachers. It is further stated that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 13361-13375 13361-13375 of 1999 arising out of judgment of this Court in Azad Bharat Colony (supra).
11. Another affidavit has been filed by Shri P.K. Gupta, Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Urban Development Department. Paras 1 to 4 of the said affidavit are as under :--
That the State Government in the Urban Development Department has no policy for the rehabilitation of encroachers on Municipal lands. However, the State Government has adopted the Centrally Sponsored Scheme namely Valmlki Ambedkar Malin Basti Awas Yojna (VAMBAY) to provide shelter and to upgrade the existing shelters for the people living below poverty line in the urban slums. The Department under the above Yojna, has formulated a scheme costing Rs. 1337.83 lacs for upgradation of 3263 dwelling units for sixteen towns viz. Meham, Kalanaur, Rohtak, Gohana, Ganaur, Sonipat, Bhiwani, Charkshi Dadri, Siwani, Kaithal, Pundri, Cheeka, Kalayat, Hansi Fatehabad and Panipat, 50% of the total cost of dwelling unit is given as subsidy under the scheme and rest of 50% is to be contributed by the beneficiary himself.
The Department has also framed a scheme for construction of 976 dwelling units for Faridabad town which is under consideration for approval of HUBCO/Government of India.
The State Government has also constituted a Slum Clearance Board for undertaking the development or redevelopment of slum areas. There are two programmes undertaken for the development of slum areas namely Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums and National Slum Development Programme. The objective of these programmes is to provide basic and social amenities to the slum dwellers, like water supply, Sanitation, Primary Education facilities, Health care, Adult Literacy and Non-formal education facilities etc.
The encroachments from Municipal land are removed by following due process of law, under Section 181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and under Sections 408 and 261 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.'
The question which arises for consideration (sic) injunction by their having occupied public land and having been provided facilities of water, electricity etc. and having not been removed for a long period?
12. Right to shelter is considered to be a fundamental right to life. Food, shelter and clothing are the minimum human rights. Reference is made to decisions of the Apex Court in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630; Olga Tellis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1986 SC 180; P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (2) SCC 182 : (1995 AIR SCW 1540); Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549 : (AIR 1996 SC 1051) and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, AIR 1997 SC 152. Problem of homeless people is globally recognised and global strategies have been framed for the purpose. Absence of sufficient housing facilities to meet the ever-growing demand of the population is leading to slums which have been ignored either on account of negligence or extraneous considerations. Some aspects of the problem have been considered by the Apex Court in Chameli Singh's case. As held by the Apex Court, it is for the authorities to take necessary steps to meet the housing needs of all citizens. At the same time, public property cannot be allowed to be encroached and concerned authorities have to ensure constant vigilance on encroachment. No right can be claimed to encroach upon public property. Once encroachment is allowed for a long period, authorities are required to act fairly. It may not be necessary, as a condition for ejectment of the encroacher, that he must be provided with an alternative accommodation at the expense of the State. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's case (supra), it was observed in para 29 : 'Normally, the Court may not, as a rule, directs that the encroacher should be provided with an alternative accommodation before ejectment when they encroached public properties...........' It was observed that it is for the authorities to prepare appropriate schemes.
13. In the present case, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court and only relief granted was that the petitioners will be heard before being evicted. The Haryana Urban Development Authority has granted hearing and directed demolition of illegal construction and removal of illegal encroachment by the petitioners. The stand of the Government is that though it has adopted some of the schemes for re-settling enproachers and for development of slum areas, encroachment from Municipal land is legally justified under Section 131 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and Sections 408/261 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.
14. Both the Courts have held that the petitioners have no prima facie case as they are encroachers and the suit property is Government property. No merit has been found in the plea that the petitioners have become owners by adverse possession. Finding of the Courts below that the petitioners have not, prima facie, become owners by adverse possession, does not appear to call for any interference. Further view of the Courts below that encroachers of public land have no right to seek injunction, also appears to be correct. Courts below have referred to judgments in Premji and Mahadeo's cases (supra) wherein it was held that no Injunction could be granted to any encroacher against a true owner. Judgment of this Court in Azad Bharat (supra) has been distinguished on the ground that in the writ petition of the petitioners, same relief was not granted by this Court or the Apex Court.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a person in possession can be dispossessed only by due process of law and even an encroacher could seek injunction against a true owner against forcible dispossession. There is no doubt that a person, in settled possession, can be granted injunction even against a true owner, though there is no absolute right to such an injunction particularly when there is encroachment of public property. In the present case, both the Courts having declined to grant injunction for valid reasons, no interference is called for.
16. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am unable to hold that the view taken by the Courts below on facts or in law is erroneous.
17. For the above reasons, while holding that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for grant of injunction and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, it is made clear that dismissal of this revision petition does not stand in the way of the petitioners in approaching the concerned authorities for granting such relief to the destabilised/landless persons as the State may, consistent with its policies, be able to provide. This cannot, however, be a ground for the petitioners to encroach public land.
18. The revision petition is dismissed.